How Zelda Could Learn From Fallout 3

The Legend of Zelda series is in need of change. This mindset is shared by the majority of Zelda fans out there. The formula has remained basically the same ever since the first game with the exception of The Adventure of Link.

Of course there has been progress in the series, otherwise people would have stopped buying Zelda games years ago. This progress however has been very subtle and just enough to keep us coming back. Since The Ocarina of Time was released in 1998 we have yet to have any major changes to the series. The Ocarina of Time went on to sell 7.6 million copies and got one of the highest reviews of any video game in history. This was because Nintendo took the already popular Zelda series in a brand new direction and the result was absolutely amazing.

So where should Nintendo go now? How can they make the Legend of Zelda fresh and new for its fans and other gamers? In my opinion they should make the game more like the popular Fallout 3 series. Fallout was a well established PC gaming series but it had never appealed to a large gaming base. However, Bethesda Studios took the reins in making Fallout 3 and the end result was a huge success. Fallout 3 shipped about 4.7 million copies in the first week alone and many more with the release of the Game of the Year Edition.

So now, you are probably wondering what Nintendo should take from Fallout 3. For those who have not played Fallout 3 I will briefly explain the game. Fallout 3 is a massive game in which the playable character has one main quest and many many side quests. Though it is a shooter game, it also has a lot of RPG elements including skill training and leveling up. It also features a massive overworld with hundreds of map locations for gamers to explore. In total, the game easily had 80 to 100 hours of game-play.

So with this in mind, I will now explain how The Legend of Zelda should be like Fallout 3. First of all, in Fallout 3, gamers could interact with and take almost anything. Every item on a desk or floor could be picked up and or used in some form. This simple concept has never made it into any Zelda game to date. Now I am not saying that I want Link to be able to walk around and pick up every single item that he comes across as, a lot of it would end up making him a thief, and we all know how that ends.

But I am wanting Link to be able to interact with his environment and be able to use things around him. In Fallout 3 you can pick up almost everything. Some items are useful such as ammo and medical supplies and some are pointless and serve no point. Nothing forces you to pick these items up, but having the ability to is a great feature that should be implemented in more games. Imagine walking into an abandoned house as Link and being able to take any book off the shelves and being able to open cabinets and desks to find arrows, Rupees, and more. This is something that is so simple but at the same time it adds so much more depth into the environment and game-play.

Next, is the idea of side-quests. Most of the Zelda games have had a hand full of optional quests to complete, but most of them have been very trivial and do not really help Link in the long run. Sure you will get a larger quiver or a bigger magic meter, but honestly, none of these are vital and ever actually needed. I never run out of arrows or bombs because they are found all over creation. To me this has made the Zelda side quests to be on the whole very pointless. The quests are also very dull and repetitive as most of them focus on some form of collecting. In The Ocarina of Time there was the Giant Poe side quest and the Golden Skulltula side quest. Both of these were based on collecting things. In the most recent Twilight Princess, Nintendo pretty much repeated the same side quests. There was again a Poe collecting quest and a Golden bug collecting quest. What gives?!? Now there is nothing wrong with these side quests. They can certainly be fun and will add on extra hours of game-play, but I know Nintendo is capable of more. In Fallout 3 there are easily 20 to 30 extra side quests. Some can be completed in a few minutes while others will take much more of your time and they range from simple exploration tasks to more in depth things like solving a town’s problems and clearing a region of an enemy infestation. What if the next Zelda game had a plethora of quests like this? Instead of two or three collection based quests they could have Link saving a town from an unknown threat. They could have Link clear Kakariko Village of Moblin uprising. They could have Link settle a dispute between neighbors. Maybe have Link test out new equipment so the developers know their effectiveness. Have Link infiltrate an enemy stronghold and take them all out or rig the place. Have Link find a missing person or track them down to lend a hand. There are just so many different possibilities out there.

But having these quests is not enough. There needs to be worthy rewards. No quiver upgrade and no bigger wallet. Every quest in Fallout 3 will reward the Lone Wanderer in a unique way. Sometimes it will be Experience Points and sometimes money, aid items, and new weapons and armor which is even better. Nintendo should find ways to reward gamers for their work. In a lot of the Fallout 3 side quests there was also quests that would have optional chores which would give the gamer a better reward if they chose to complete them. If a system like this was implemented then the Zelda experience would be much richer and add on so many extra hours of quality game-play. Just think about it. The land of Hyrule is being taken over yet you never see people that need help or is in danger. Just that scenario alone opens up so many different ideas. Think Nintendo! Come up with some side quests.

Lastly, the Fallout 3 world is just humongous and as well all know the Legend of Zelda overworlds have never been too immerse. The land of Hyrule, in general, is a largely empty region. You can get around all of Hyrule field in the matter of minutes in Ocarina of Time and Twilight Princess. In Ocarina of Time you could even cross the entire field without running into any enemies or people whatsoever. The Wind Waker was a complete different situation, but again, the Great Sea was mostly devoid of enemies. And finally, Twilight Princess was a bit better, but the enemies posed no real threat and it was still empty in many places.

Now I do not want to see Hyrule swarming with enemies at every inch. But Nintendo needs to make the world more interactive. In Fallout 3 harder enemies will appear in various areas based on your level and progress. Why can’t the Zelda series be like that? Throwing a PeaHat at you once every 2 minutes is worthless and especially when you have 12 heart containers. The enemies in the over world needs to reflect your skills and progress in the game. And there needs to be more then one enemy. If Ganondorf is trying to take over Hyrule then he really needs to get serious about his security and actually get some enemy forces out there.

And finally, what is the deal with the landscape being so boring? Nintendo will display gorgeous terrain in their teaser trailers, but by the time the game is released they are nowhere to be found. Has Link ever been through a forest? Not really. Yes there is the Lost Woods and the Forest Temple. But I mean a real forest. Why have we never had to travel through a forest to get to the village on the other side? Why do we not get to interact and fight enemies? Why don’t we get to go through a real cave. Not some three room “cave” that we are used to. Nintendo needs to expand on the overworld and finally allow us explore. Do not make everything so straight forward and simple.

These three simple suggestions would take The Legend of Zelda to the next level. As Nintendo has realized with the Wii and DS, gamers like interactivity. Now they need to implement the interactivity into their games. Gamers would develop a much deeper connection to the world and overall have a much better gaming experience.

Noah Glaser is a graduate of the University of Cincinnati where he majored in Information Technology with a minor in awesome. Noah has worked in web marketing for over 5 years and has built a reputation that has followed him both professionally and independently. He is the founder and lead content contributor for The Hidden Triforce.

In the 5th grade he bought Link’s Awakening for his brother as a Christmas gift. Since stealing it back, he has been hooked to the Zelda series and has never looked back. In his spare time you can find Noah frolicking with his Porygon and Kiwi Birds. He dislikes chocolate, cheese, and bacon.

"Though it is a shooter game, it also has a lot of RPG elements including skill training and leveling up. "

This is true and quite unfortunate, considering that Fallout 1 and 2 are full-fledged RPGs and not shooters at all.

David Macphail

The one thing that actually really annoys me about Elder Scrolls IV and Fallout 3 is the level – up – syncing between you and the enemies in the game. Every time you get stronger….so do the wild enemies – which at times can make the game near – impossible.

I think they should have taken a page out of the book of some of the better RPG's out there like Final Fantasy or Pokemon and kept all the enemies in one area at a set level range. It makes game progression much more natural.

Edgar

"The formula has remained basically the same ever since the first game with the exception of The Adventure of Link"

While I more or less agree with this statement I'm not sure you're giving Zelda its due credit. Majora's Mask was actually a very innovative game, and it departed from the Zelda formula substantially. What did Nintendo get for their bold departure in Majora's Mask? They sure didn't get very good sales. Wind Waker also attempted to take the series in a new direction with its unique look and its emphasis on exploration. Zelda fans revolted against Wind Waker claiming the game looked too childish, and many didn't even give the game a chance. Once again Nintendo was punished with poor sales. When Nintendo decided to essentially recreate Ocarina Of Time with Twilight Princess every Zelda fan cheered and the game is one of the best selling Zelda games ever. Personally I'm incredibly dissapointed with Twilight Princess. I thought the game was so stale I couldn't even get through it. Unfortunately for me Nintendo has been taught time and time again that diverging from the formula set forth by Ocarina of Time and Link To The Past will result in a mutiny from the fans and poor sales. In other words Nintendo isn't ruining this series, the fans are.

Nintenfan81

So true. I hate how every other Zelda fan on the net is complaining about the games being boring, then getting super mad at Nintendo for changing anything.

http://hiddentriforce.com Legend of Zelda

I do think that majoras mask was a good change of pace. And was a very good game. However I do not think it was enough. It used the same engine as OoT and was very similar. It had the new mask concept and whole new plot and it did focus have a better focus on side quests then most of the other games.

But it was not a huge departure from the series.

As for the wind waker. I think the graphics drove a lot of people away. I personally loved that game. But besides the water overworld it was not very different.

TP was a good game. But a huge disappointment for me. It was over hyped and ended up being nothing new. New graphics and horse combat. Boring.

That is why I think Nintendo needs to shake things up and re-invent zelda. And I do not mean with a train or making zelda a phantom because I still do not believe that is the way to do so.

Edgar

Don't forget about how time played out in Majora's Mask. In Majora's Mask there were a lot of different events that took place in real time. You could learn about these events, effect their outcome and walk away with different prizes. Eventually the end of the world would happen and you would need to go back to day 1 in order to avoid certain death. You could persists your prizes in a vault in order to keep your progress. Nintendo essentially created a real time sandbox that you could interact with. I thought the concept was pure genious, and honestly I've never seen it before. Sure it was still a Zelda game on the surface, complete with dungeons and it even had a limit of 4 bottles, just like every other Zelda game since LTTP. I thought that Majora's Mask was a really neat experiment with the series. You're right when you say Wind Waker isn't a major departure for the series, but even with its minor changes it was railed against by fans.

http://hiddentriforce.com Legend of Zelda

I think MM was a good start with that. But what happened? They abandoned that idea. I think one the reasons it did not go over so well was the clock concept. I personally could no stand it and the clock is what made me never play too far into MM after beating the main quest. Having to sit around and wait for so long got really tiring and if you missed the event or messed it up on accident you had to restart the clock and wait again.

They should have kept the fundamentals of it and improved in later games but they just didnt for whatever reason.

Edgar

You make a good point. The clock system was really innovative, but it did have the side effect of making the game boring. Nothing was worse than waiting around for an event to happen and then screw up the quests and end up having to try again later. I guess my main concern is Zelda fans need to be willing to accept changes to the series. Honestly I think there are signs that fans are sick of playing the same old Zelda games over and over, and Miyamoto has said that he wants to liven the series up a bit. Here's hoping.

http://hiddentriforce.com Legend of Zelda

If you look at the zelda sales figures. Only a few of them sell incredibly well. And the rest throw out average and fairly decent sales.

The 3D games are obviously the ones more people want. And within the zelda fansite community a good percentage of people are hoping for huge innovative changes to the series. Some see spirit tracks as being that innovative concept. I still disagree with that as I do not think it goes far enough or in the right direction.

You seem to be fairly cool and you know your stuff. We are a medium sized zelda community but we have fun.

Edgar

David Macphail:
Bethesda's RPGs are non-linear open world RPGs. In Bethesda's RPGs gamers can do the myriad of different quest lines in any order they want. In order to support that Bethesda needs to have the enemies level up with the player; otherwise quests that take place in different areas won't be availalbe to the gamer at the early stages of the game, because the enemies will be too difficult. Conversly if the player levels up too much then the quests that take place in the weaker areas would be too easy, and therefore not any fun. Linear RPGs like Final Fantasy don't have this problem, and so they can keep enemies at constant levels. Personally I really like non-linear RPGs like Fallout 3 and Oblivion. A good gamer can still easily create a character that has an edge over his enemies with the right Perks and by leveling up the right skills. Saying Final Fantasy is a better game than Bethesda's RPGs is a matter of opinion. Honestly for my money Bethesda's games are much much better than Final Fantasies, but once again that's a matter of opinion.

David Macphail

Your point makes sense – i never thought of it that way because i tend to always do the main story first. However i still don't personally appreciate spending hours levelling up only to find out i don't have the slightest strength advantage over my enemies……seems like kind of a waste to me.

You're right about it being a matter of opinion over which games are better but if you compare the sales figures of Fallout to those of Final Fantasy or Pokemon……it seems more people agree with me. :P

Edgar

Oh for the record I really love the Final Fantasy serie, and I will be picking up Final Fantasy XIII.

Mak

I would indeed like to see a more open and interactive Hyrule that you could explore much more fully. There were some great side quests in the past Zelda games, although I do agree they should make the side quests more epic and abundant and introduce a little more variety in the weapons/spells/tunic you use. That said I don't think Zelda should radically depart from the traditional formula, it should always predominantly remain an adventure game rather than an RPG.

Edgar

I do like your suggestions for the Zelda Series. I think that taking these pages from Fallout 3 would really improve the series. Another game I think Zelda could learn from would be Fable II, we all know Fable borrows heavily from Zelda. How about allowing your character in Zelda to purchase more and different weapons? What about bringing back the level up system that was available in Zelda II? More towns would also be nice, but I wouldn't want Zelda to use Fable's expression system. The expression system is lame.

cheezbox

This is, by far, the dumbest article I have ever read. First off, Zelda is already loaded with side quests, and they are all very important. Go ahead and try to beat OoT or Twilight Princess without a single upgrade. Far more difficult than with the almost useless stat upgrades or crappy guns you get in F3 for beating quests.

Secondly, are you actually comparing the terrain of an N64 game to that of a 360 game? LOL. Funny you pick Fallout 3, too, as that has likely the single most boring terrain of any game ever made. FWIW, the terrain in TP is significantly more interesting and varied (especially by F3 standards). And no forest? What the hell are you talking about? Every single game starts out in a forest. And they've got deserts, fields, beaches, mountains, caves, castles, dungeons… What does F3 have? Wasteland, abandoned subway tunnels and destroyed buildings and *that is it*.

What a pathetic fanboy article. Thanks for the laugh.

David Macphail

This is, by far, the dumbest comment i have ever read.

If you're going to accuse someone of being a fanboy at least get your facts straight – Fallout 3 isn't a 360 exclusive, it's readily available on the PS3/PC as well.

I'm beginning to wonder if you have ever even played Fallout 3…..maybe you're just one of those internet trolls who saw a headline he didn't like and then, without even reading the article, decided to make a comment in typical fanboy fashion by bashing the other game mentioned in the article using guesses about the content of the game from what he's seen in TV commercials. Maybe you should've paid more attention to those commercials….then you might have realised that Fallout 3 isn't a 360 exclusive game it's a multiplatform game.

What a pathetic fanboy comment, thanks for the laugh.

Dark Link

Please try to be mature. Youre calling me a fan boy but yet you are on here ranting like a little kid.

Name me the side quests of Twilight Princess. And ive beaten both games without upgrades. Very easy to do so.

And i mentioned the OoT terrain and the TP one which was a Wii and GC game. You are focusing on the small details instead of the overall concept.

Now send me a screenshot of when Link is in a forest and actually surronded by trees in a 3D zelda game that plays some significant purpose.

The locale in Fallout was good because you could go into all this different things. The overworld was loaded with things. Zeldas landscape is almost bare. There is no unique locale.

So far you are the only one to dismiss this entire article in such a way. So next time take it for what it is.

avenged

I agree that the Zelda series needs aspects such as leveling up and such. But if you're not referring to just the 3D Zelda games, then this article is very inaccurate.

http://hiddentriforce.com Legend of Zelda

It is primarily focused on the 3d games. On N4G I posted it under the Wii category. And only gave 3d examples

I always found the 2d games to have a lot more to do in them until recently.

avenged

Recently? What about The Minish Cap?

Dark Link

I would not say the minish cap had anything that was worthwhile in it in terms of sidequests. the overworld was interesting but small (no pun intended)

the oracle games had a lot especially if you linked the two up. There were weapon upgrades galore. the rings alone made for deep elements.

jack

i agree in some parts, like the opne world being more interactive, and maybe level up weapons, more interesting sidequest and all that, well in overall a really nice article and nintendo should read it, it will make the zelda experience better, but i don't know why so many people don't like twilight princess, in my opinion it was a great zelda game, but well, everyone have different opinions right (sorry if my english is not good)

Dark Link

No worries. Thanks for commenting :)
I liked twilight princess but nintendo did a bad job with the whole development and marketing process which made it way over hyped

http://nma-fallout.com Tagaziel

Pretty big error there: while it is true that 4.7 milion copies were SHIPPED to retailers, only about 600.000 were SOLD in the first MONTH.

I guess it's typical for people to not do their research nowadays.

Dark Link

Whatever man. No need to nitpick. I love how everybody who disagrees will find one grammatical error or one irrelevant point and use that as their reasoning on why they disagree.

TokiwaMori

Now, Fallout 3 was a good game but I have to agree.. the only time Fallout 3 had any sort of different environment was when you went into the Oasis, other then that the Wasteland did get boring.

I HATED WW. </3 I'm usually all for storylines and not graphics but the graphic design was so bad I couldn't concentrate on the plotline much. The graphics made me vomit, it felt like it was hand drawn by a two year old. Also, the bull that you had to go through to get all the Triforce pieces? And if you were off by even the slightest when you lowered the crane into the water, you had to wait 5 minutes for the crane to pop back up and do it all over again, THAT and I was sick of only seeing water..

I loved Ocarina of Time because it was amazing, they kept a lot of elements from the Zelda series in there but enhanced the graphics and gameplay. There's no need to start introducing guns to Link, that'd just be really F—ing stupid. I'm still upset about Spirit Tracks, I mean.. please a train? o.o;

Twilight Princess was amazing as well, your seriously telling me they didn't do a lot to improve by that game? You should get your head examined.

And Dark Link, "Now send me a screenshot of when Link is in a forest and actually surronded by trees in a 3D zelda game that plays some significant purpose."

Go play Twilight Princess and go to the Forest and… http://images.amazon.com/images/G/01/videogames/d… look! Trees! Even a waterfall. I've played all of Twilight Princess, I own both the Gamecube and Wii version of the game and there are many times where Link is surrounded by trees. For instance when he's in wolf form and he has to jump from tree to tree to get across the poisonous clouds below him. o.-; So what the heck are you talking about? Are you sure you've played the game?

If fans were really fans, they wouldn't buy into a lot of this poo. A fan doesn't mean buy every single Zelda game, no matter how crappy it is.

Nt

I think this article should be "How could Zelda learn from Oblivion" instead. They're much more similar games than FO3, and in most of those points Oblivion actually makes it better than Fo3 despite being a lot older.

Daddy

There is only one word that can describe this piece: EPIC!

My favorite part has to be when he says, "Has Link ever been through a forest? Not really. Yes there is the Lost Woods and the Forest Temple. But I mean a real forest. Why have we never had to travel through a forest to get to the village on the other side?".

Thank you, Noah, and keep em' coming :)

subby

Ok disregarding the likely occurence that the Wii can't even handle a 3d game with so many 3d elements like fallout 3. But I would like to say that they are completely different games. Zelda is PURE adventure game (action, exploration and solving the main quest) with a little rpg elements. Oblivion and Fallout 3 are pure sandbox pure rpg's with an fps fighting element. Granted they have never been very good sandbox rpg's but they are the largest. Their purpose is to provide the largest and most varied 'playground' they can for people to explore and fight in.

Screw Fallout 3 or Oblivion. Zelda should take its cues from Baldurs Gate II and Fallout 2. That is story based immersive experiences. Basically Zelda should just tell their stories better and make them more engaging to give the person that EPIC feel. Ocarina of time, Fallout 1&2 were the most engaging and immmersive video game experiences I've ever had. Zelda accomplished this with incredible production values (music and graphics) and really really fun gameplay, whether I was shooting or jumping around or solving puzzles. Ocarina of Time pushed the N64 to its limits but can any recent Zelda game say the same of the Wii? Its just a case of using what you have available to its fullest potential. I say not MORE side quests, just more immersive, engaging and FUN side quests. I say there is no need to pick shit up- just create more immersive and engaging environments. And lastly I say no need for more varied rewards just create rewards that are more relevant to the story, immersive and profound. Learning to use and finally getting that horse or that master sword should be very fulfilling and epic moment in a Zelda game.

Lets all remember what Ocarina was in its time. First epic 3d world experience on a console, first epic experiences of fighting with sword and shield, riding a horse and shooting a bow. EPIC and affecting storyline. Incredible level design. Incredible graphics and music. And finally the most advanced control scheme EVER devised. As long as Nintendo keep on doing this with the technology that it has in its hands Zelda will never get old or boring. And they will never need to learn shit from anyone.

Coryb

As someone who has played and enjoyed most of the Zelda series and the entire Fallout series, I have to say that I have enjoyed bioth games. While I believe there may be a few things that Fallout 3 does better than Zelda, overall, I would say that Zelda has a much higher level of polish than FO3. Zelda has many strengths: memorable boss encounters (generally not just hacking away until the life bar runs out), entertaining exploration, EXCELLENT puzzle dungeons (probably the series best feature). I suppose it would be nice if there was more areas to explore, but the benefit of keeping a smaller area is that the area is more refined, more polished, and more interesting. While I think that people who say that Fallout 3's terrain was a little one note might be missing the point a little bit (its a desert wasteland, people), I don't think that Zelda would necessarily benefit from the addition of lots of empty space to the map.

The other thing is, is that Zelda is a series. Series innovations SHOULD be fairly limited. Change the formula too much, and you might as well start a new franchise, which imo wouldn't be a bad thing either, since all we get these days is sequel after sequel after sequel to any franchise. Fallout 3 is actually an excellent example of this. Poke around any Fallout community website and it won't take long for you to notice that Fallout 3 alienated a lot of the original games' fans. Its more popular, to be sure, but thats because its more mainstream and accessible than the originals. The fans of the first two games are understandably upset that was once a crpg has been turned into a shooter, and the VATS system is little consolation.

Anyway, I'd say that if anything, Fallout 3 could learn a few things from Zelda, not the other way around.

SuperMutant

I haven't played any Zelda games since the 16-bit era but if you want to have your lovely franchise horribly raped and mutilated until there is barely anything recognizable, sure, go ahead and request the Bethesda treatment. You'll be surprised how much INNOVASHUN! they can cram into a game.

Also, I'm so happy that the author used "popular Fallout 3 series" instead of just Fallout – implying, correctly, that 3 is something completely different from the previous ones. Though, since there's only one game (Fallout3) I'm curious as how it can be called series – maybe the multitude of milking stupid customers, I mean downloadable content counts?

This is an epic article, I'll definitely be sure to add this site to my morning routine!

Brandon

Just like to throw in my two cents. The main problem with this article is that it fails to understand the gaming culture of Japan. Fallout 3 is a Western game that follows a Western philosophy. There is a lot of freedom in the game, which tends to appeal to a more Western audience.

However, in Japan, its the exact opposite. There tends to be a rejection by the gaming populace towards freedom and more of a desire for restriction. Look at most JRPGs to understand this concept. Even something like restricting camera movement (present in earlier Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil games) shows this philosophy pretty well.

Keep in mind that since Zelda is a Japanese game that it tends to be made to appeal to the more immediate gaming culture. It will be made to be more restrictive when compared to Western games. If Zelda were to be made more like Fallout, the Japanese gaming population probably won't receive it very well (Fallout 3 isn't a really popular game, from what I've seen and heard. Anyone, feel free to correct me).

So, keep in mind that you're coming from a different culture and your ideas of what might improve Zelda may be completely different from what a gamer in Japan might think. There's nothing wrong with either philosophy, just keep in mind that they're different.

Brandon

Oh, and I was playing Fallout 3 while writing my above comment. (and still am) ^_^

Sandie Medez

Thankyou for the excellent article.

Corny

Although I played and enjoyed Fallout 3 quite a bit, I don't like it as much as Zelda – and that's because of some of the things you want to change ;)

First, you have the idea of mooooore items to carry and interact with. The items in Zelda, however, are always something special. Every time you get an item or a bunch of rupees, a fanfare sounds, congratulating you for finding that item. That would become boring if you picked up some junk item every five seconds, right? You don't get _a_ boomerang, you get _the_ boomerang. And you don't have 500 swords with different stats to choose, you got one or two. And the second isn't "damage +3", it's something like the Master Sword, the only sword which is able to defeat Ganon, or it's the Shell sword, which is able to shoot beams which might even change your gameplay. Same with shields. There aren't a bunch of shields who have different stats, you have shields who are, well, shields, then you get another one which might be fire resistant or mirroring beams. So – you get the idea: the items are special. And although Link already uses hammerspace to carry his impressive collection of gadgets and weapons, it becomes much more ridiculous if he casually carries 20 rusty swords he found to sell them later.

Also, the menu would change. And to have a table with just text like in Fallout or an inventory grid kills atmosphere imho.

I think the dynamic levelling is a stupid piece of game design, even more in a linear game! I agree that the normal enemies in Legend of Zelda are usually (much) too easy. But to adapt it to the heroes „level“ doesn’t make it better. The point of becoming stronger is to become stronger than the enemies, right? Why should I bother to collect heart pieces when the enemies would become harder then? Isn't it much more reasonable if there are, for example, enemies which are too strong for you at the start but will be a equal enemy later in the game?

So, nagging aside, I agree with you that it’d be nice if the areas would feel more real and less like levels, but I’d say that they already do a better job than other games. And I’d prefer a level that doesn’t look very real to a level that doesn’t look like a level in a game, but is horrible in terms of gameplay structure. Again, it's something about making it special – in Fallout, you may walk through a metro, shoot some random raiders, and that's it. You walked through a metro. In Zelda, you have unique tasks to do to master the dungeon/area instead of just walking through it and killing all enemies. (I know there are many sidequests in those areas in Fallout 3, just making an example here).

About the quests: Yes, I would like to see more sidequests, but I’d prefer to see consequences of my actions instead of getting a potion or a bag of rupees (of which I usually have too many anyway). And please no "collect 20 bear asses" and "kill that random NPC" please!

Ryan

Being a huge Zelda and Fallout fan, I was so happy to see this article. I was born in 1980 and my first Nintendo game was Zelda 2. That game was ridiculously hard! But that's what I loved about it. When Zelda 3 came out I thought it was a joke. This game was for toddlers. I started thinking maybe I was too old for video games. Thankfully Ocarina delivered and my faith in Link was restored. But, just watching the opening scene to Majora's Mask was enough to lose it all again. The original fans, that are my age, we may be kids at heart but were not children. When I first played Elder Scrolls, it was a game changer, Bethesda knew exactly what we wanted and the technology had finally caught up to our imaginations. Oblivion quickly became my favorite game and few years later Fallout 3 claimed the title. Recently I went back and beat Zelda 2, it was just as dark, menacing and difficult as I remember. I hope that Nintendo gives Zelda the overhaul she deserves and remembers her true fans are old enough to drive cars now.

Zelda Fan

Meh!

Refried Zelda?…crap!….p***.

I guess Nintendo discovered the response to the question of how many times can a game be refried and sold over and over.

250 dollars for 3DS crappy battery, no worthwile games on 3DS…bah! ………p***!

A NO GAME 3Ds for 249 or a brand new Playstation Three PLUS a free GAME plus a 50 dollar gift card.

Gee let me think(sarcasm).

And Nintendo wonders gee why are 3DS sales low?

Get lost! Nintendo!

249 dollars for black ops games plus a new PS3 at Games Stop since it comes with a 50 dollar gift card.

Carter

Woah, woah, woah, woah, FRICKING WOAH. W?hat the heck? Why would anyone want A zelda game to be something like fallout? WHY IN GOD'S NAME WHY?!!?! Alright, I've played Fallout 3 and practicably (? stupid spell check) every Zelda game. And I have to say if Zelda was like Fallout, the series would be trash.
First off, why would you want it to be more "interactive" by picking up stuff? What would we benefit from that? Ohh, a cup!
Second off, you're saying Oot's Hyrule field was bland? Its a frickin' N64 game? They already loaded so much in the game, you want the game to be slow?
Third off, exp points? No. Enemy's level increases with yours? No. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. The enemys should stay the same as you./ Besides, Zelda isn't much of a c ombat based game. other than the learning new skills and attacking, it just isn't. Besides, no one ever wants to fight enemies anyways.
I have more to say but I don't want to.
I'll finish with this:
Zelda is Zelda. Fallout is Fallout. If you want Zelda to be more like Fallout, then its not Zelda. Its Fallout but with "The LEgend of Zelda" slapped on the case. If you have a problem with how the games play, the nyou shouldn't play them. Because if they changed the game, no would with a brain would play it. And I pretty much agree with every "Don't change it to be Fallout 3" comment.